Public Bill Committee

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]
Written evidence to be reported to the House
HGV 03 Kent County Council

Clause 9  - Collection of levy

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move amendment 5, in clause9,page6,line21,leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) HGV road user levy is to be paid in part into the Consolidated Fund and in part into a fund to promote road safety, cycling and enforcement.’.

Sandra Osborne: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause11,page6,line40,leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) A fine imposed under this section is to be paid into an enforcement fund.’.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is a pleasure to see you back with us, Mrs Osborne. These are probing amendments and will probably constitute the substantive discussion for today’s sitting, given that they cover the key issue of the money raised from the levy and fines and how it will be used. It is entirely correct and logical to consider the amendments together because they cover the same territory, but they differ in that one deals with hypothecation and the other with the money from fines being spent on enforcement.
The amendments principally state that the money raised from the levy and fines should be directed to roads and safety. During last Tuesday’s evidence session, the Freight Transport Association said in its written submission that
“The UK road freight industry has been supportive of the principles behind the bill for many years. There are, however, certain conditions for that support which, taken together, demonstrate a collective concern that this should not be treated as a simple revenue-raising exercise from the logistics industry.”
It also said that
“suggested uses for the new revenue should be either supplementary funding for VOSA to enforce payment of the Levy and to increase safety checks on the roadworthiness of vehicles and compliance with drivers hours' rules.”
It also referred to:
“Support funding for the creation of a dedicated network of secure, lorry parking and driver facilities, open to all goods vehicles, with priority targeted on avoiding parking up of vehicles in lay-bys and local communities.
Supplementary expenditure to the £220 million 'Pinchpoint Fund' announced in the Autumn Statement 2011 to improve congested parts of the Strategic Road Network.”
We also heard last week from Mr Andy Boyle, who, when I asked him about the question of extra revenue for VOSA for enforcement, said he was keen to see that happen.
Yesterday we received supplementary evidence from Kent county council, which I am sure the Minister has had a good look at and discussed with his officials. It is not known as a bastion of radical socialism or anything other than a good friend to the Government. It is a very well run council and clearly has a particular interest in these measures because, as it says, 87% of foreign HGVs enter the UK via the Dover straits. In paragraph 1.2 of its submission, it states:
“KCC strongly advocates that the Bill should also legislate how the income raised from the HGV road user levy will be used. KCC urges that a fair proportion of the revenue raised by the HGV road user levy should be ring-fenced to mitigate the burden of international traffic on local communities and to reinvest in the UK road network and infrastructure.”
It continues:
“KCC also believes that the current proposals demonstrate a degree of inconsistency with the National Policy Statement for Ports which presents the need to safeguard good access to UK ports as a national priority and identifies port activity and development as being an engine for economic growth.”
It refers to good access, and reaches the following conclusion:
“Kent County Council urges that the HGV Road User Levy Bill include legislation to ring-fence the revenue to help offset the impacts of HGVs on the UK’s roads.”
Small hauliers, the Freight Transport Association and Kent county council therefore clearly hold strong opinions on how the money should spent.
Yesterday’s edition of The Timesreported on the latest developments in its cycle safety campaign. A poll of the 14,000 supporters of its “cities fit for cycling” campaign clearly indicated overwhelming support for extra spending on cycle safety in particular. I know that the Minister, who recently launched this Christmas’s “Think!” campaign on drink-driving, is especially interested in this subject and recognises the importance of cycle safety. The Times reported that three out of four respondents to the poll thought improvements should be funded out of existing taxation.
When I was first appointed as a Minister in 2005, a senior civil servant advised me during one of our first meetings that, on the issue he was talking about, “There is room for a brave decision here, Minister.” I said that I was sure that was a line from “Yes Minister”, and asked him to come back with a different recommendation. However, I say to the Minister today that there is room here not just for a brave decision but for a very popular decision—popular with the Tory heartland, popular with the freight transport industry and popular with The Times. Dare I suggest that the Government’s unpopularity is such that they need good policies to restore their battered image? Such a decision could make the Minister very popular with No. 10, as well as the country. This issue definitely needs to be examined.
As I said, amendment 7 is slightly different in that it would create an additional incentive for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency by directing that the revenue be paid into an enforcement fund. Anybody who has dealt with VOSA—I strongly recommend that members of the Committee spend time with the organisation; it is a worthwhile experience—will have observed its efficiency, dedication and professionalism, and seen the technology it deploys. I am not for one second saying it needs an additional financial incentive to do the excellent job it does, but such an incentive certainly would not go amiss.
As I have said, during last week’s evidence session there was clearly strong support within the freight industry for supplementary funding for enforcement. The cameras, axle weight sensors on roads, staff, vehicles and inspection points do not come cheap, so I suspect that any additional funding would be welcome.
Clause 11(3) states:
“A fine imposed under this section that would not otherwise be paid into the Consolidated Fund is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”
I am curious to know which fines would not otherwise be paid into the fund. Under our amendments, the fines would go not into that fund but into an enforcement fund to assist VOSA in exercising its duties. That would ensure that the money raised by the Bill is paid into a ring-fenced fund for road safety and maintenance.
The essential purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the contribution foreign hauliers make for the wear and tear and damage they inflict on our roads is actually spent on roads. We will therefore listen with interest to the Minister’s response to these two amendments.

Michael Connarty: I was very impressed by Kent county council’s written evidence on the damage to and pressure on its own road system. However, I want to tell the Minister about the need for hypothecation for Scotland, where it is quite clear that a back door to the UK exists. Grangemouth, which is the only recognised inter-modal hub in the European transport network, has a port and there is rail access. While driving to Edinburgh yesterday, I noticed a freight train going out of Grangemouth, which is the largest container port in Scotland, to Aberdeen. Many such containers are transported by rail to other cities. The system works quite well, but there are still major problems in Grangemouth. The M8, M9 and A76 motorways all come together there and are then linked by the A801, which is probably the most dangerous road in Scotland when it is not snowing.
The A801 has what is known across Scotland as the Avon Gorge, and thankfully there have not been any fatalities on that road, but there have been some serious crashes on the narrow bridge over the deep gorge. Since I became a Member of Parliament in 1992, the Government have failed to put any money into trying to solve that problem, despite lobbies from the many freight transport organisations that situate themselves for logistical purposes on the A8 at junction 4 outside Bathgate in my constituency. First, they left it to the regional authorities, who almost put a scheme together, and then it was left to the small unitary authorities, West Lothian and Falkirk. I have correspondence going back to 1992 from the then Minister, Lord James Douglas Hamilton, saying that when they upgraded the Scottish motorway network the trunk road link might be recognised between the M9 and M8 by building a dual carriageway.
If the Minister were to drive with me from Bathgate to Grangemouth, he could leave the road at the roundabout just at the end of West Lothian and walk across the field to where the dual carriageway is marked out to the Avon Gorge. It is also marked out on the Falkirk side of the countryside. However, it was never built. There is a strong argument for hypothecation to deal with bottlenecks such as that, because we have an inadequate transport system. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I see the trans-European networks laid out in various ways—communications, IT and so on—and there is this mythology that a linked up trans-national road network runs through Scotland. Actually, people have to drive into Edinburgh and back out again to Glasgow or Stirling, or drive into Glasgow and via the M9, and then on to the A876 via the Kincardine bridge and into Grangemouth. It is nonsense. There is a massive petrochemical complex, and there are very large food retail network distribution centres on the West Lothian side, which has a major Tesco investment, and on the Grangemouth side, which has a major Asda investment.
The Minister may not realise but people can come through Grangemouth and into England by the back door. That is why there is such a large investment in the port of Grangemouth—because it is easier to drive through Grangemouth to Manchester than it is to drive from Dover, given the congestion on the southern roads. Grangemouth has become known as the back door to the UK for many companies, but, ludicrously, people have to drive down an A road that, in the main, is not a dual carriageway, and that has a deep gorge and a narrow bridge where whole cargos of livestock have been burnt to death in crashes. We have the ridiculous situation whereby we can raise money for road users coming in from non-UK states, when we should be thinking about hypothecation to deal with these bottlenecks and other problems.
Just as Kent county council has made a good case regarding the large volume of transport that goes through that county, we have to look at the needs of other parts of the motorway network if we are to use this money sensibly. I have some reservations about the fact that it is not being used to help those who are UK HGV registered when they have problems, but I will raise that issue later. In this case, hypothecation for the road network is entirely sensible. Does the Minister even know where Grangemouth is, and has he given any thought to the needs of the Scottish economy in this context?

Alan Reid: I know the gorge the hon. Gentleman is referring to, and it is indeed as dangerous a spot as he says. Surely, when he referred to “the Government” he meant the Scottish Government, not the Government here.

Michael Connarty: I take the point. I know the hon. Member recognises that when we do these things, we give money through the Barnett formula to Scotland. I recall the odd situation when we introduced the free bus pass in England. It was going to be financed from the transport budget in England, but the Barnett formula had to be used to put 10% of that money into the Scottish budget. There was already a free bus pass system throughout Scotland. As with a lot of other things in Scotland, we never knew where the money went. For example, Train to Gain was given £2.6 billion, which meant that Scotland got £260 million, and yet there was no training or skills policy in Scotland. The money was obviously sucked into one of Alex Salmond’s mad schemes to bribe the people of Scotland to vote for independence. In this case, it would be the same: the hypothecation would go to the Scottish Government. It would be up to us to keep track of that money and to argue strongly that it be spent in the right way.
As I have been arguing for 20 years, it is time that the Government of Scotland and the UK Government put their hands in their pockets to get rid of this nonsense of having a major road network with a bad A road and a dangerous gorge. It is time to rid the motorway network of such silly problems. I say in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse that it is time to spend this money where it should be spent: on the road network, rather than putting it in the Chancellor’s back pocket.

Pat Glass: I have a number of questions for the Minister. The previous Labour Government tried to deal with this issue, as did the previous Conservative Government. It is a difficult issue and I congratulate the Government on getting this far. However, the decision to introduce the charges for UK and for non-UK hauliers up to a year apart means the Government will not receive a penny of the money from foreign hauliers until September 2014 at the earliest. Why is it going to take so long to get this money?
Clause 9 gives the Secretary of State and their officers powers to collect the levy—the same powers as those given to the officers of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—and revenues will be paid into the Consolidated Fund, not an enforcement fund. Labour previously suggested that revenue from the levy could be used to help the haulage industry to install equipment and improve training, with the aim of improving the safety of cyclists, who are particularly at risk from HGVs. Why can the Minister not support such a measure? The submission from Kent county council is an excellent piece of special pleading—one of the best I have seen. I am not necessarily supporting the case for hypothecation, but as some of my colleagues have said, it reinforces the case for an enforcement fund.
Finally, I want to raise a concern that will be raised throughout our consideration of the Bill: where the Government are going with this legislation. My worry is that it is paving the way for a wider use of road charging, with increased costs to British motorists generally. I look to the Minister for reassurance that there is no cunning plan behind this, and that it is not opening the way for more road charging.

Ian Mearns: I have been very impressed by the special pleading we have heard this morning. I fear that the levy will have to be much higher, given the range of demands coming out of this discussion.
My concern is that hypothecation would not raise anywhere near as much as we would want. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, and we have similar problems in the north-east of England. Although we might have the same social problems as Scotland, we do not have the benefit of the Barnett formula. Government expenditure in Scotland is somewhat higher than in the north-east of England, where there is deprivation and unemployment.

Michael Connarty: I rise only to own up to that fact. I will send my hon. Friend’s contribution to Alex Salmond to remind him how well the UK looks after Scotland.

Ian Mearns: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. A few weeks ago, Mr Salmond came to speak in the north-east of England. He was pleading that we should work together after independence—which will never happen, by the way. He wants the north-east of England and Scotland to grow our economies together. The leader of the Scottish National party wanting us to plead together for the UK Government to provide better transport links through the north-east of England to the Scottish border is a little perverse.
The problems in the north-east of England need to be addressed urgently. We are a net contributor to the UK economy, exporting £13 billion-worth of manufactured goods. Improving our road network would result in a big bonus for the whole of the UK economy. As it approaches the north-east, the UK motorway network runs out at Dishforth in north Yorkshire. From Dishforth to Tyne and Wear, we have many miles of glorified dual carriageway, albeit with a hard shoulder, and about four miles of crawler lanes through the county of Durham.
People ask me all the time how quickly they can get to Tyneside from the end of the motorway network, and my usual answer is: about as fast as the HGV overtaking in the outside lane of the dual carriageway. That is about as fast as we can go for many miles. It often takes more than an hour to travel the 40 miles from Tyneside to Scotch corner on the A1 going south. The rest of the country is much better served, with the M6 going all the way to the Scottish border. The ports of Tees and Tyne and Wear would massively benefit from the hypothecation that we have talked about to improve the network.
If we want to transport goods from Tyneside through Northumberland and into Scotland, there is a dual carriageway, intermittently, as far as Alnwick, and then the road peters out. In some places south of Alnwick there is a single lane in each direction. We are talking about a major network—the A1 that links Edinburgh to London—and yet we do not have the advantage of a real motorway network in the north-east of England that would benefit our economy.
I could not agree more with what my hon. Friends said about HGVs and cyclists. As a “some time” cyclist myself, I have been overtaken by buses and HGVs that then railroaded me off the road and into a lay-by because they did not look at the inside lane. I was lucky not to hit a kerb, sign or bollard. We have to give more intelligent thought to teaching foreign and UK HGV drivers how to treat cyclists.
I am a pedestrian as well—I do not own a car—and I see the way some cyclists misbehave on the road, but we should not let all cyclists be treated badly because of the actions of a few. We need to teach HGV drivers, bus drivers and lorry drivers how to keep cyclists safe on our roads. We want more people to cycle, and such education, along with the hypothecation of road safety schemes, would be of significant benefit.

Michael Connarty: I was looking for the right moment to intervene in my hon. Friend’s speech, as I am an intermittent cyclist but a regular driver. I confirm his view of the road network in the north. Having decided last year to take the car via Newcastle to Holland, I honestly believed that I was lost when I ended up on what was, I thought, a country road when I was supposed to be driving down the A1. It was genuinely that bad, and anyone who has not done that journey should do so and, thus, realise the absolute failure of successive Governments to treat the north-east of England as part of the country’s road network. If we examined the trans-European network, we would probably find that the north-east of England does not exist, as the M6 is the only recognised road network into Scotland. The experience was amazing. For a large part of the journey, I really thought that I was lost and travelling down a country road to the port at Tyneside. It is time that something is done about it.

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has just reminded me that, if drivers of heavy goods vehicles entering the country at the ports of Tyne, Tees, Wear or even Hull, want to go to Scotland, they have to use the roads in the east of the country that we have spoken about or similar roads cutting across the A66 or A69, which are dual carriageway for part of the way. The north-east is a backwater for transport in this country. If we want economic growth and a region such as the north-east of England to pay its own way, there must be investment in the roads system, otherwise we are in danger of seeing economic growth and transport infrastructure requirements as two separate things.
For far too long, under successive Governments, the Department for Transport has regarded the minimisation of congestion in particular areas as its top priority. Having said that, one of the top two or three most congested roads in the country is the A1 western bypass around Newcastle and Gateshead, where road usage on a dual carriageway is extremely heavy—probably as heavy as the number of vehicles per hour that travel on parts of the M25. It is long overdue for investment by the Department for Transport, notwithstanding the possibility of hypothecation.

Stephen Hammond: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Ms Osborne, and to resume our discussions of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse for tabling the amendments that we are debating. He is right to say that, although amendments 5 and 7 have the same intent to a certain extent, they are different in that amendment 5 deals with the payment of the levy into a hypothecated fund, while amendment 7 covers a fine that would be paid into a new enforcement fund.
The Government propose that, like vehicle excise duty, the money raised from the charge from both United Kingdom and foreign hauliers is expected to go into the Consolidated Fund to be used on a variety of services. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk has referred several times to the Chancellor’s back pocket. Well, the Chancellor’s back pocket pays for such things as schools, hospitals, the police, defence, social services payments and so on. It is a big back pocket, so it is right that my right hon. Friend goes into it to pay for such services, as well as improving roads and providing better services to road users.
There has been a lot of talk in the debate about hypothecation and its benefits. Thinking about it philosophically, there are three possible advantages to hypothecation. One is that there is some transparency—you raise a certain amount of money and it goes to a particular item. The second is that there is public choice. I may choose to pay money into the road network, but not into education. That may be an argument for our tax system, which has its disadvantages as well. The third advantage of hypothecation is public awareness. The public would be acutely aware of how their money was spent; that is the transparency argument. Hypothecation would bring the public into the discussion.
However, there are three overwhelming disadvantages to hypothecation. Before I discuss the detail of the possible hypothecation of the levy, I hope to persuade Members to think philosophically about and then reject the amendments of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. First, a deluge of taxpayers will say that they prefer not to pay for particular services in light of Government policy. There are people who voted Labour in the previous general election who do not support the coalition now. Nevertheless, they might agree that some things that the Government raise money for are appropriate, and they are happy for the Government to do so. Other things they might not be happy with. One of the principles of our system is that we pay tax into the Consolidated Fund so that the aggregate of individual demands for greater spending on different services is met.
Secondly, there is an argument about tokenism. I will relate this point directly to the clause in a moment. We could say that we are going raise taxation by 1p for education, but would we ever see where that money goes? That point was more than adequately made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk when he talked about the £260 million lost somewhere in the system. Therefore, there is an element of tokenism here.
The final philosophical reason why we should be cautious when thinking about hypothecation in the cold light of day is that it would make Governments and people prey to emotive rather than rational decision making. For instance, someone may say, “I will put every piece of money into finding the cure for a particular thing,” or, “I will put more and more money into the health service,” neglecting that we also need to put money into the HMRC. Many of us would not choose to do that if we did not need to, because tax collection is not as popular as hospitals. We would therefore be prey to emotionalism. At a basic, philosophical level, we should be careful about hypothecation.
I want to make one other point before I address some of the remarks made by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse certainly accepts that there is a key difference between his suggestion of the payment of this levy for using the road network and the payment of tolls on bridges and tunnels. The difference is that the payment of tolls is designed to pay for the construction costs of infrastructure.

Michael Connarty: It is always dangerous to talk about EU matters with someone who has been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 14 years, and once chaired it, as I did. When the EU introduced the Eurovignette, which is not a structure-based fund, the directive made it clear that the Eurovignette and tolls and payments for structures should not be seen as the same. Article 9(2) of the directive, as amended in 2011, said that the revenues of member states “should” be spent on transport. The term “should” is not legally binding, as we know. The UK argued strongly for “should” not “shall”; that was something I always agreed with in the Committee. It allows some leeway, but not so much that nothing of the revenues goes to transport.

Stephen Hammond: I suspect that my predecessor was arguing for “might” or “could”, rather than “should” or “shall”, in that instance. The point I will argue is that this discussion has highlighted a desire that some or all of the revenue be diverted away from the Consolidated Fund into enforcement, road safety, road programmes and cycle safety. Although the Freight Transport Association made the point about wanting to ensure the money was raised, it also recognised that the money going into the roads programme, the infrastructure programme and cycle safety dwarfs the amount that would go into those programmes if it was ring-fenced from this levy, so one must be careful.
As I highlighted in my letter to the Committee on 6 December, the plan is already to spend an extra £500,000 annually on enforcement, which will go to VOSA. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse raised the issue of cycle safety, which the Government rightly take extremely seriously. I certainly do—it is one of my key priorities. We are doing work on both behavioural and infrastructure campaigns. The autumn statement put further money into cycling infrastructure, but, more importantly, on top of a huge £1 billion package for investment, it put money into a package of road improvements that would benefit infrastructure, safety and cyclists.

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister not think it is slightly odd that the argument we are using for the introduction of this levy is about the wear and tear of roads caused by foreign hauliers, but we are not saying that we should use the money to repair that wear and tear?

Stephen Hammond: No. If we consider the money that she and I pay in taxes, she might want that directly related to Bolton West or I might want it directly related to Wimbledon. It would therefore only be right that people in Wimbledon pay for things that happen there, if that is her argument. That seems to be a bad argument, philosophically. Moreover, on a practical level—I hope that I have illustrated this, and I certainly intend to do so by picking up some of the points that have just been raised—the money raised from this levy, which is forecast to be somewhere between £18.7 million and £23.2 million annually, is dwarfed by the money the Government are putting in and the extra money that the Chancellor committed last week, which goes into all sorts of schemes.
If we were just to say that this money was for sorting out the problems caused by the wear and tear caused by vehicles, look at the extra money that the Government made available for pinch point funds and highway maintenance last week—£500 million for highways and local roads maintenance on top of what we have already made available. So if one were to hypothecate this money, there is a real chance that the Chancellor could say, “Well, you’re getting your ring-fenced funds for HGVs—why should I give you more?” That would put the Department for Transport in a very difficult position. On a practical level, it would simply raise less money for the intended purpose. It is quite right that we make foreign lorries pay, but it is also quite right that we ensure that our highways are fit for purpose for people, beyond heavy goods vehicles.
Several Opposition Members have made the case for Kent, and of course I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse that it is a well-run council. I am delighted to see a Conservative council running its county well, which is why we have espoused localism. However, the hon. Member for North West Durham was right that it was a masterful piece of special pleading. Even when I first mentioned the Bill and some of its measures in a television interview some time back in October, Kent was already making this point. However, Kent misses two key points, which of course it would, because it is special pleading. Kent already receives moneys from the Government—as do all local authorities—on a formula basis to help it fund all local services, including improvements to roads. We recognise that there are some extra burdens on the roads in Kent.
However, the point that Kent does not make, which is even more pertinent, is that the HGV levy will not increase traffic; the traffic is already there. If we were to give Kent some money out of the levy, we would be saying, “We already give you some money from one source. Here is a bit of extra money.” That would be unjustified, because it is already getting the money to do the job.

Michael Connarty: This is a serial error in the Government’s logic. A directive, after negotiation, contains a number of positions for the Government to sign up to. This Government serially sign up to directives and then attempt to manipulate the implementation in such a way that they do not fulfil the intention of the directive. I see that again and again in their attitude to human trafficking, which they treat as an immigration problem, not a victim problem.
In this case, what article 9.2 says is quite clear. It states that the Government
“shall determine the use of revenues”.
That is right; legally, it is “shall”. However, the article goes on to say that revenues
“should be used to make transport more sustainable”.
The levy is supposed to implement that in the UK; it is a version of the Eurovignette. The article says that revenues should be used to make transport more sustainable
“including one or more of the following”,
listing, from (a) to (i), a number of specific activities. They are new uses for the revenue raised, and the article says that the Government should use the revenue for those things. If the Government are not going to do that, and plead that they already give places finance, what is the point of saying that the levy will implement the directive? That is what the levy is—the implementation of a European directive. If the Government wish to ignore the directive, fine, but I believe that people in local authorities that do not get the money, or individual organisations that expect to see one of the activities funded by additional money from the levy, will be able to take the Government to the European Court of Justice and win a case against them.

Stephen Hammond: That is an interesting point. The Government are using huge amounts of money, some of which will come from the levy, to support some of those activities. I have already gone through why I believe the hypothecation of the levy would be wrong, both philosophically and practically. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in voting against the amendment if the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse presses it.
I am surprised to hear the argument of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, which is that if we were not to follow one of the particular lines of spending he refers to—I am not sure what (a) to (i) are, but I am sure that some of them are already covered by what we are spending money on—someone could take the Government to the European Court. That idea is undermined by what the directive explicitly says, which the hon. Gentleman might have wanted to make clear to the Committee. It says that it is up to member states to determine what to spend the revenues on. That would probably prove to be an adequate defence for the Attorney-General.
I want to pick up one or two of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. He mentioned clause 11(3). The point about that is the same as the point about his amendments 5 and 7, one of which is to do with the levy; the other is to do with the fine. Clause 11(3), which states:
“A fine imposed under this section that would not otherwise be paid into the Consolidated Fund is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund”,
is for clarification. While taxes are generally paid into the Consolidated Fund, fines are not. It is therefore particularly important to include that subsection, because it makes it clear that the fine must go into the Consolidated Fund.
The hon. Gentleman reminded me that unpopularity could be averted through populist measures. I should listen to him, because having been a Minister under the previous Prime Minister, he is probably an expert in unpopularity, but were I to venture down the line that he encourages me down, and the line that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk encourages me down in relation to hypothecation in Scotland, I would find myself unpopular with Scottish colleagues who find they are getting less money than now and with English colleagues who say I am being too generous to Scotland. On that basis, I may not be tempted down the line.
It is absolutely true—this is where I would agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, as would all other members of the Committee—that transport is devolved to Scotland and that the Scottish Government can choose to use their money where we may have used it for other purposes. It shows, however, the inadequacy of the SNP Government and their faulty desire to move away from the Union.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Hammond: In a moment, because I want directly to address the point about the increase in expenditure on the bus pass. There are no additional costs for Scotland directly as a result of the Bill. Scotland got money, but there was a difference because there was a direct increase in costs in England.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I have listened to the Opposition’s pleas for hypothecation of the road user levy, but they are missing the point slightly. The road user levy creates a level playing field in the haulage industry in the UK. Opposition Members need to remember that the British Government are seeking reimbursement for repairs that have already been made due to many years of damage by foreign hauliers. These roads are being repaired, so it is only fair that the Treasury gain some revenue from the foreign hauliers using our roads.
The pleas for the road user levy to be used for road improvements were rather like a tour of northern and Scottish constituencies by back road. Just to put things in perspective, the road user levy will probably raise just £20 million a year. That is a considerable sum, but it is not, in capital infrastructure spending, a huge amount of money. Can the Minister tell the Committee how many miles of motorway or dual carriageway could be built for £20 million? I put it to him that it will not be a great amount of road, wherever it is spent.

Stephen Hammond: I cannot give my hon. Friend chapter and verse on the cost of motorways, because different things cost different amounts in different parts of the country. All I can say is that a driver like him would barely get out of second gear, if not first gear, on the amount of motorway that will be funded by the levy.

Ian Mearns: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Hammond: No, I will give way in a second. I recognise the pleading that the hon. Member for Gateshead made for the north-east and I particularly recognise the issues that he raised about lorry drivers, HGVs and cyclists. That is why the Government have been keen to give their backing to the Mineral Products Association campaign, particularly on the work it is doing with lorry drivers to ensure that they have better training and cycle awareness and that new mirrors are in place. That campaign is valuable.
During the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the north-east, the only thing I failed to hear him say was that he welcomed the A1 improvements that the Government announced last week. I am sure he is just about to intervene and claim that he supports them.

Ian Mearns: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. My first point, which is in answer to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, is that we may be making special pleas for a small amount of money for the north of England and Scotland, but, frankly, Kent county council started it. From that perspective, an opportunity for a little bit of retaliation and local special pleading arose. I do not think you will criticise any of us for taking that, Mrs Osborne.
Regarding the Minister’s comments, of course I welcome improvements to the A1, but compared with the depth of problems in the north-east, we are only scratching the surface.

Stephen Hammond: I suppose the obvious response to that is that after 13 years of not scratching, scratching is a good start.
I will come back to the hon. Member for North West Durham on her other point, but first let me be absolutely clear with the Committee that, as I said during the Second Reading and Ways and Means debates, and as the Government have said time and again, we will not introduce road pricing this Parliament, and none of the work we are doing in this legislation is either a preparation or a Trojan horse for that. I wanted to put that on the record again.

Andrew Bridgen: I am informed by a very reliable source—the BBC—that every mile of motorway costs £30 million to construct. To put things in perspective, according to my calculation, the road user levy will allow us to fund on average only two thirds of a mile of motorway a year.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who just proved that I was wrong, because he would barely get out of first gear, rather than second gear.
I have come to the end of my remarks about amendment 5, and I will probably not take quite as long on amendment 7. Broadly speaking, the argument is the same. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was talking about an enforcement fund. During the evidence session and the debate on Ways and Means, we gave some detail about the enforcement moneys being provided; I have also given some detail about the extra moneys provided. I have written to the hon. Member for Bolton West— I hope that the letter, if it did not arrive this morning, will arrive some time today—setting out chapter and verse on the figures she asked for. I do not think a separate enforcement fund is appropriate, nor do I think, in line with the principles I have stated, that the hypothecation of fines is the best way to constrain and prioritise how resources are used.
I see that the hon. Member for North West Durham is back in her place. I assure her that I have no Baldrick-style plan, nor do the Government, to introduce road pricing.
Regarding the implementation date, charging is set to start for both UK and foreign hauliers in 2014. The time scale for the procurement process and setting up the charging system and database is relatively tight, but I am confident that we will achieve it.

Michael Connarty: I hear what the Minister says about the Government’s intention not to introduce road charging, but if he and Members who do not sit on the European Scrutiny Committee took the trouble to read the papers—they are important papers—they would find that the European Commission
“is currently looking at developing a legislative proposal for distance-based road charging which would initially apply to road freight but could be extended to all vehicles. A legislative proposal is expected by 2014.”
The EU, I believe, can do that with qualified majority voting, because it is in the Common Market package of the European Union. Such a proposal might be resisted by many parties in this country, but there seems to be quite a bit of enthusiasm for it across the EU.

Stephen Hammond: This part of the coalition and, I am sure, the coalition in general, and indeed the Opposition, will want to work to resist that proposal, and we will do all we can to ensure that it is resisted, because that is appropriate.

Pat Glass: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Hammond: One very last time.

Pat Glass: I apologise for popping out before, but I had to rush upstairs to ensure another Committee was quorate.
To clarify: when the Minister was talking about the dates, am I right in my interpretation that there will be different dates for the implementation of charges? UK HGV drivers will be dealt with first, but it will not be done before September 2014 for foreign HGV drivers. The Minister is shaking his head, so I obviously have that wrong.

Stephen Hammond: It is our absolute intent that there will be a simultaneous introduction date in April 2014. We would move away from that only if—it is a minor possibility—the procurement and the database for foreign lorries were not in place, but I am confident that we will meet that time scale. With those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: In his concluding remarks, the Minister referred to cunning plans and Baldrick. I was always under the impression that Baldrick was a member of the Labour party—at least in real life he is—so if he has given the Government cunning plans, we want the credit for them, or we might have to take disciplinary action against him for collaborating with the coalition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk made strong points about the directive and the implications of the Government following or not following it. The Minister rightly says that the money raised by the levy and the fines is dwarfed by the amount the Government commit to roads expenditure, and we fully understand that. Hon. Friends who came to the aid of Kent county council will probably find themselves on KCC’s Facebook page this evening, listed as its allies.
The Minister described the cant around hypothecation as a philosophical argument. He made some strong, relevant points about why Governments of different persuasions have resisted hypothecation for many years. The one telling point he made, which is worth reinforcing, was about messaging and road safety, particularly cycling safety. We read this morning that the trial of the HGV driver who ran over the journalist from The Times started yesterday. That incident led to The Times’s cycling campaign, which has great support across the country and in Parliament. The campaign underlines the increase in cycling deaths and reminds us of the 2,000 people killed and the 20,000 seriously injured on our roads each year.
The Minister accepted the principle that messaging is important, but the Government must look for every opportunity to reinforce the message. Directing the fines raised against foreign hauliers breaking our laws—it will be a tiny amount of money—into an enforcement fund would be a small gesture, but one that would afford the Government the opportunity of publicity, promotion and propaganda. He dealt with the arguments against it, but messaging is important. We recognise that the Government are committing additional money to cycling safety and carrying on the good work the previous Government started to prioritise cycling. We all want that to continue. Given the Minister’s remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: We have had a pretty good canter around the collection of the levy. The intent of the clause is simply to give the Secretary of State and his or her officers powers to collect the levy; they may authorise any individual or body to act as their agent for the purposes of the Act. The powers given here are exactly the same as those given to HMRC in respect of its duties of excise. The revenues from this levy will be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10  - Power to stop

Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move amendment 6, in clause10,page6,line24,leave out from ‘stop’ to end of line 25.
This is a simple probing amendment, with none of the significant implications of the amendments that we have just discussed. When I read subsection (1), I was a little confused about the requirement of a vehicle appearing to be a heavy goods vehicle. Were the amendment made, subsection (1) would read simply:
“A stopping officer may direct a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle in Great Britain to stop.”
I would have thought that that was a power that stopping officers had, or should have, and I could not understand the need to refer specifically to the fact that the vehicle
“might be a heavy goods vehicle.”
I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of why the additional words are required.

Stephen Hammond: When I read the Bill, I shared the hon. Gentleman’s confusion. Having taken some proper advice, I will be able to help him out.
The power to stop vehicles that appear to be HGVs is a key part of the process to enforce payment of the charge that will be applied to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. The Bill seeks to add a stopping power to those relating to drivers’ hours or roadworthiness, and so will allow a stopping officer to stop any vehicle that he or she believes is an HGV—one weighing more than 12,000 kg. The inclusion of the provision removes any doubt about the power of the stopping officer. Hypothetically, if the officer stopped a vehicle that was beneath the 12,000 kg limit, although there would not be a problem with payment of the levy, the officer might have exceeded his powers. If the powers were not in the Bill, such a stop could be illegal, thus raising issues about prosecution.
Although I accept that the drafting is slightly convoluted, amending the clause as the hon. Gentleman suggests could place an unnecessary restriction on officers’ ability to stop vehicles, because they would have to be absolutely certain that the vehicle weighed more than 12,000 kg. Without the provision, they could be acting ultra vires. The drafting is designed to ensure that officers do have that power. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is not our intention to do anything to prevent officers from having clear powers to stop vehicles. Having heard the Minister’s explanation, I am very happy to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: The clause gives officers—under section 66B of the Road Traffic Act 1988—the power to stop vehicles that appear to be HGVs to help enforce the charge. It enables stopping officers to stop a vehicle if it appears to be an HGV within the meaning of the Bill. If the clause allowed the officer to stop only an HGV, the officer would need to be certain that the vehicle was an HGV within the meaning in clause 2, otherwise they would be acting beyond their powers.

Michael Connarty: Before the Minister moves on, I want to ask a question for clarification. The clause gives the power to stop a vehicle to check the levy. I presume that the police have the right to stop a vehicle for any reason if they suspect it not to be compliant. Is there not a danger, given that there is a new non-roadworthiness issue, that the clause allows the officer to stop the vehicle using the levy as a pretext and check them for other things? We could end up with accusations that there is discrimination in some way, with both UK vehicles and others being stopped on the pretext of checking the levy, but ending up getting a full check on other matters.

Stephen Hammond: Of course, police officers have the right to stop any vehicle to look for possible roadworthiness infringements anyway. This goes back to my answer to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. My concern—although this would be relatively unlikely—is that, if someone was stopped expressly for non-payment of the levy and the vehicle appeared to be under 12,000 kg and some roadworthiness issues were spotted, while I am reasonably certain that that prosecution should still be brought, there is a suggestion that that prosecution could be infringed. That is an issue. If the vehicle were over 12,000 kg, had been stopped on the pretext of the levy and the levy had been paid, but a roadworthiness issue was found, that would not be a problem, because the police have separate powers to stop anyone on that pretext.
Enforcement agencies currently use stopping powers and, as I have said, they will continue to do so. The clause deals with the stopping powers in England, Wales and Scotland. In Northern Ireland, vehicle examiners appointed under article 74 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 will have a power to stop by virtue of article 180A of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. With those few remarks, I commend the clause to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11  - Offence of using or keeping heavy goods vehicle if levy not paid

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I was tempted to not speak on the clause, but there are a number of issues about it that I should make clear. It would help everybody if I put them on the record.
The clause makes it an offence for a person to use an HGV on the road when the levy has not been paid at the appropriate rate. That means that the primary offender will be the driver of the vehicle. It also provides that, where an offence is committed, the person liable for paying the levy—we went through liability in our last sitting—also commits an offence. Failure to pay the HGV levy will be a separate offence from that of using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle.
If the levy is found to be unpaid, the driver, the vehicle operator and the registered keeper will be liable for any relating fine. In practice, for UK-registered vehicles, the expectation is that enforcement authorities will deal with the registered keeper rather than the driver, because the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will have their address. For foreign vehicles, we will enforce mostly against the driver, since non-compliant vehicles will be stopped at the roadside. In the event that a foreign driver can provide a satisfactory UK address, the VOSA enforcement officer or a constable in uniform will issue a fixed penalty notice of £200 to the driver.
There are then three possibilities. First, if the notice is paid within the suspended enforcement period, it discharges any liability for conviction. The suspended enforcement period is 21 days, or any longer specified period, which is typically 28 days—VOSA currently specifies 28 days. Secondly, if, instead of paying the fixed penalty notice, the recipient elects to contest the notice within the suspended enforcement period, the matter will proceed to trial: if they are acquitted, no amount has to be paid, but if they are convicted, the court may fine them up to £5,000. Thirdly, if the notice is not paid or contested within the suspended enforcement period, the amount of the fixed penalty plus one half will be payable.
In the instance that the driver of the vehicle, whether UK or foreign, is unable to provide a satisfactory UK address, the VOSA enforcement officer or an officer in uniform will issue a fixed penalty notice or a conditional offer requiring a deposit of £200, which is the same amount as the fixed penalty. There are then two possibilities. First, the deposit is held for the suspended enforcement period, and if the recipient of the fixed penalty notice does not request a hearing within that period, the amount of the deposit is put towards the payment of the fixed penalty. The fixed penalty and the deposit are the same, so no refund would be required. Secondly, if the recipient requests a hearing within that period, the matter proceeds to trial. In the instance that the driver refuses to pay the deposit, the VOSA officer or constable may immobilise and remove the vehicle.
As I have said, the maximum penalty for non-payment on summary conviction is level 5, which is £5,000. Enforcement officers can enforce the levy against someone found using a vehicle for which no levy has been paid, provided that the officer can prove that case. Such a prosecution will be through the courts, because currently fixed penalty notices can be given only where an offence is being or has been committed. A minor technicality in Scotland is that a conditional offer rather than a fixed penalty notice is made. For more serious cases of failure, the VOSA enforcement officer may decide not to issue a fixed penalty notice and move directly to a prosecution.

Julie Hilling: The Minister still has not answered the questions about two drivers being in a vehicle, who is liable if a vehicle has an outstanding fine from a previous visit to the UK, and whether the driver or only the car is held when the driver cannot pay anything.

Stephen Hammond: In practice, if there are two drivers in the cab, the penalty will be enforced against the driver at the wheel, because they were driving the vehicle at the time. If a driver is unable to pay, they can telephone the registered operator in whichever country they are and the VOSA officer will have the power to take the fixed penalty deposit over the phone. That can happen, but if that is not possible or the operator refuses to pay, the vehicle will be impounded and immobilised, not the person. I have forgotten the middle question.

Julie Hilling: The other question was about a vehicle having an outstanding fine from being here previously.

Stephen Hammond: I have made the point that, in more serious cases, VOSA may wish to prosecute straight away rather than issue a fixed penalty notice. I anticipate that, if the levy had not been paid on several occasions, the VOSA officer who stops the vehicle will recognise that and may decide to move straight to a prosecution.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister clarify that point? A foreign lorry is stopped by VOSA and is found not to have paid the levy. The driver is issued with a fixed penalty notice for £200, but where is the obligation to make the driver pay the levy? The moment the driver discharges the £200 fixed penalty he can drive away, but he will actually be committing an offence again—unless he has paid the levy.

Stephen Hammond: That cannot happen. As we set out in a previous Committee sitting, there will be an obligation to pay the levy as well as the fine. I am reasonably certain that that situation cannot happen.

Michael Connarty: I think that I have had clarification on this point—it was in a reply to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench when I was not here. If there are outstanding fines, they will have been levied on the vehicle. However, if the driver has paid the levy, presumably he is not breaking the law. He is on the way to making a delivery, and his problem is that his wages are attached to driving that vehicle. I can see great problems if the vehicle is then impounded and the delivery is not made. The driver may find himself with no pay and stranded in a foreign country. Whose responsibility is it to help the driver get back to his own country if the vehicle is impounded?

Stephen Hammond: In the particular case—it is a relatively particular case but, none the less, it is worth dealing with—to which the hon. Gentleman refers, if the driver who was driving the vehicle on a particular day had paid the levy, but it was quite clear to the VOSA officer that the vehicle had been driven previously by different drivers who had not paid the levy, it is the responsibility of whoever is liable for paying the levy to pay the back levy and the fine attached to it. Clearly, it is their responsibility to ensure that the driver gets home. It cannot be an obligation on the Government. With those few remarks, I hope that the clause may stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12  - Legal proceedings

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: The purpose of the clause is to give effect to schedule 2, which sets out the arrangements for legal proceedings in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, proceedings may be instituted only by the Secretary of State, or by a constable with the approval of the Secretary of State, and they may be initiated at any time within six months from the date on which sufficient evidence comes to light in the opinion of the person instituting the proceedings. Proceedings may also be started up to three years after the commission of the offence. The enforcement of the charge will be carried out by using a database recording levy purchases. Conclusive proof of the approval may be provided by a certificate signed by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, stating the date on which the evidence came to the knowledge of the person instituting the proceedings.
In Scotland, proceedings under clause 11 may not be started more than three years after the commission of the offence. They may be instituted by the procurator fiscal as a result of information provided by the Secretary of State, or the person instituting the proceedings. Conclusive evidence of the approval may be provided by a certificate signed by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State, or the person instituting the proceedings, or purporting to be signed on that basis. The paragraph creates a statutory exception from the general rule of corroboration in Scots criminal law.
Similar exceptions exist elsewhere in statute, for example, under section 54 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. The clause lists authorised persons for England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and for Scotland, and it specifies time limits for underpayment and overpayment recovery.

Alan Reid: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Osborne.
I want clarification of schedule 2(6), which states:
“In proceedings in Scotland...the accused may be convicted on the evidence of one witness.”
My hon. Friend will know that there is currently a heated debate in Scotland on corroboration in criminal cases. Traditionally in such cases in Scotland, corroboration is required to secure a conviction, but the SNP has put forward proposals to remove that requirement, and that has led to a heated debate. My hon. Friend touched on the issue dealt with in paragraph (6) in his remarks, but may I clarify that what is being introduced here—where corroboration is not required—is standard in road traffic offences already, and we are not pre-empting anything that the Scottish Government may propose in the case of criminal offences?

Stephen Hammond: I am absolutely clear that, having consulted the necessary Scottish legal opinion, we are not doing anything to counter that. I made the comment about the statutory exception, but that will not impinge upon anything else that the Scottish Government might wish to do in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 13  - Fixed penalties

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: Again, I wish to make a few remarks to clarify the Government’s intent with regard to fixed penalties. The clause inserts the offence in clause 11 into schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which lists the offences for which fixed penalties can be imposed under part III of that Act. That enables enforcement officers to give a fixed penalty notice to an offender.
The fixed penalty notice allows the offender to pay a fixed sum within a specified period to avoid prosecution for the offence. Fixed penalties are currently used for offences committed in respect of vehicle roadworthiness and drivers’ hours. The amount of the fixed penalty will be set using powers under section 53 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to amend the Fixed Penalty Order 2000. The Road Traffic Offenders Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only. In Northern Ireland, provision for the issuing of fixed penalty notices is made by part IV of the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.
The 1988 Act does not extend to Northern Ireland because, prior to devolution in 1998, Northern Ireland already had widely devolved powers that enabled specific Departments there to make their own legislation. At that stage, Scotland and Wales had no such powers. Fixed penalty offences in Northern Ireland are specified by an order made by the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland under article 57(2) of the order.
It is envisaged that the Secretary of State will exercise powers under part IIIA of the 1988 Act to amend the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) Order 2009, so that an enforcement officer can ensure and require that a fixed penalty deposit be paid by a person who has committed the offence in clause 11, where the offender cannot provide a satisfactory UK address. The amount of deposit will be set by amending the Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) Order 2009.
In more serious cases, the VOSA enforcement officer may not feel it is appropriate to offer a fixed penalty notice, and may instead choose to prosecute the offender, in which case a higher deposit, which can be held for the prosecution period, may be required. Again, if a driver refuses to pay the deposit, the vehicle may be immobilised or removed.

Michael Connarty: I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, a former Minister, understands these issues exactly. Paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 seems to say that the prosecuting authority—the same point is made in the part dealing with Scotland—must commence some form of action within six months. On the time limit for recovery of underpayments and overpayments, paragraph 4 says that
“no proceedings may be brought…after the end of the period of 12 months”.
I presume that that means serving a notice or a ticket of some kind to say that the money is owed—a fine or a levy. If proceedings do not commence within one year, they cannot be proceeded with thereafter. Is that what is being said?

Stephen Hammond: The issues here are similar to those that could have been raised under the legal proceedings provision, in respect of which I stated that proceedings may be initiated at any time within six months from the date on which sufficient evidence comes to light. Proceedings may also be started up to three years after the offence was committed. That is because evidence may come to light quite a bit later; indeed, sometimes it comes to light two years later. That would still allow an offence to be prosecuted after two years, but there is a sunset provision relating to commencement. The situation is broadly similar to the fine payment.

Michael Connarty: The provision relating to Scotland states clearly that proceedings
“may not be started more than 3 years after the commission of the offence.”
Where in the schedule does it say that for England and Wales?

Stephen Hammond: It is dealt with in clause 12.

Michael Connarty: Ah—it is in the Bill itself.

Stephen Hammond: The issue the hon. Gentleman is raising is dealt with in clause 12, which relates to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The changes affecting Scotland are also covered.

Michael Connarty: All that clause 12 says is that
“Schedule 2 (legal proceedings) has effect.”
I note the “3 years” reference relating to Scotland, but where in the schedule does it relate to England and Wales?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point and I am sure the Minister will be able to answer him in a moment. The Minister has read the definition into the record and said that the matter has been dealt with, but my hon. Friend has said that the definition is not included in the schedule, and that clause 12 refers only to the schedule. I assume that the Minister had to make sure that this explanation is on the record, and to make it clear that this is the intention behind the Bill, in case anybody were to challenge it. Forgive me, I am not a lawyer, but I think I am getting the drift. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Government intend to include the wording that he read into the record as an amendment to schedule 2 when the Bill goes to the other place.

Stephen Hammond: It is a very interesting point. I guide the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2, which makes it clear that the provision applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. So the issue is covered by clause 12, by virtue of my remarks on the record, and by virtue of schedule 2.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14  - Register of levy paid or due to be paid

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: Clause 14 requires a register to be set up and maintained to record payments made in respect of each HGV. The register must hold details of the registration number, the country or territory the vehicle is registered in, and the period of time for which the levy has been paid. That information must be available on a free-to-view website that is kept on behalf of the Secretary of State to aid enforcement of the levy, and to enable a driver of an HGV to check whether the levy has been paid for that vehicle before using it on UK roads.
The detailed specification for this database is currently being prepared. The contract will be for a supplier to take payments and to set up a database to maintain records. It would not be appropriate to speculate on the details of the system as it may affect the procurement process. However, my colleagues should be reassured that all the correct Government procurement processes will be followed.
Payments will be made through a variety of methods, including online and over the telephone. The system itself will be relatively simple and will use tried and tested technology. We are exploring whether information on those who have not paid can be shared with, for example, VOSA and the automatic number plate recognition system, and whether data collected by the UK Border Force on HGVs that have entered the UK can be used. With those few clarifying marks, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Ian Mearns: There was some discussion in last week’s evidence session about the potential for operators that own many vehicles to accumulate different levy defaults but to use different vehicles over a period of time. In order to get around that, would it be useful for the register to show the actual operator of each vehicle?

Jim Fitzpatrick: Subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State must set up and keep a register”,
while subsection (3) refers to information that is
“kept by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.”
I am curious about the wording. The Secretary of State “must set up” the register, whereas, as the Minister has outlined and we discussed last week, the Department is requiring a contractor to bid for the tender to run the register. I would have thought the contractor would have responsibility for setting up the register, or would at least have to tender on the basis of how it would run one, yet the Bill says that the Secretary of State must do it, rather than order that it be done. Will the Minister clarify the difference in language between subsections (1) and (3)?

Stephen Hammond: I will consider what the hon. Member for Gateshead said, but that issue would obviously be dealt with by what we choose to specify within the contract. He makes a perfectly fair point, and I will speak to officials about whether it is reasonable to put that in the contract specification. Personally, I see no reason why it should not, but there may be legal reasons why it cannot. I will certainly bear that point in mind.
I may need to come back to the hon. Member for Gateshead, but I am reasonably certain that the intention is for there to be an obligation on the Secretary of State. Without the clause, the Secretary of State would be able to contract out the contractual process that brings the register into being. The obligation to set up that contractual process must be on the Secretary of State, rather than on anyone else. That is the difference between the requirement of the clause that,
“The Secretary of State must set up and keep a register”—
and a register being kept on his behalf. Once he has set in place the procurement process and there is a contractor, those records are kept on his behalf. However, the obligation must be on him to start the procurement process. That is the rationale.

Andrew Bridgen: I support the idea proposed by the hon. Member for Gateshead to have the operator on the register. Currently, VOSA enforces in the UK by keeping a record of each vehicle attached to every operator of a number of vehicles. It builds up a history of the operator’s performance and misdemeanours by conducting roadside checks. When a vehicle owned by an operator that regularly does not comply with driver hours is stopped or is seen at the side of the road, the first thing that VOSA officers will do is look at driver hours; if the operator does not maintain tyres correctly, that will be the first thing.
If operators are on the register, foreign operators with large fleets can be analysed in exactly the same way. The data will be built up by stops in the UK by VOSA. That will be helpful not only for enforcing the levy but for making sure that foreign hauliers comply with maintenance standards and driver hours regulations in the same way as UK hauliers.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. I was listening to them carefully. I will reflect on his comments and those of the hon. Member for Gateshead.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

HGV road user levy and vehicle licences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: This clause is relatively simple. It inserts a new subsection into section 7 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994. It will allow the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a vehicle licence—popularly known as a tax disc—for an HGV if the appropriate levy has not been paid. Section 7 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to issue a licence to a vehicle on application. Subsection (5) provides that the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a licence in certain circumstances, if he is not satisfied that the particulars of the vehicle are incorrect, including its weight, construction or use, and that VED has been paid.
Clause 15 makes non-payment of the levy a reason for refusal along with the other matters mentioned above. The Secretary of State has discretion on issuing licences, so may refuse to grant a licence on a number of grounds, now including non-payment of the levy. Failure to pay the levy will therefore result in an unlicensed vehicle. Using or keeping an unlicensed vehicle is an offence under section 29 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and such a vehicle may be immobilised, removed and disposed of.
With the plans for allowing levy payments only at the same time as VED renewal, it should be impossible for operators to avoid paying the levy and pay only the reduced VED. The clause would cover the situation if, for any reason in the future, the levy and VED were de-linked, although I do not anticipate that being the case.
As written, the clause offers the Secretary of State the power to prosecute for either VED or levy evasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17  - Regulations

Sandra Osborne: The question is that clause 17 stand part of the Bill.

Nicky Morgan: Aye.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough enjoys my comments so much she was trying to move things on even more quickly.
It is important to say a few words about the clause, which provides for the Secretary of State to have a general power to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Bill. My point is that such regulations will be subject to agreement by the House of Commons under the negative resolution procedure. They are subject to negative resolution because they will generally deal with administration of the levy or will give effect to the provisions of the Bill.
In contrast, regulations under clauses 2 and 3 will deal with the scope of the Bill—which vehicles are liable and on which roads—and consequently impose an obligation to pay, so they are subject to the positive resolution procedure. The only slight exception is the ability to make regulations under clause 8(3), which enables certain vehicles to be exempted or subject to a reduced rate. Those regulations are also subject to the negative resolution procedure, because they are deregulatory in nature and it was therefore felt that requiring the approval of the Commons would be disproportionate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19  - Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I rise briefly because I wish the Committee to be clear about one significant point. The clause provides full details of the other Acts and regulations referred to in the Bill, which is in itself significant. The clause defines the period for which the levy is paid and also states that, if a rebate is paid under clause 7, such people will be treated as though they have not paid the levy for a vehicle for the period specified. Those points are significant.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20  - Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: Again, just for absolute clarity, I point out to the Committee that the clause provides for the Act to extend to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22  - Short title

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hammond: I rise to be clear about the short title—the HGV Road User Levy Act 2012—but, really, Mrs Osborne, to thank you and Mr Amess for your work in the Chair during our sittings. I also thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse for the way in which he has led the Opposition in Committee and in the debate on the Ways and Means motion, and for some quite perceptive questioning from Members of the Opposition, whom I hope I have been able to reassure over the points they have raised with me.
I hope that my hon. Friends have enjoyed the experience of this particular Bill Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] With those few words, I beg to move that this clause stand part of the Bill.

Jim Fitzpatrick: If I may, I join the Minister in his vote of thanks to you, Mrs Osborne, and Mr Amess, to the Clerks, to the Hansard reporters and to the officials who have helped us in our deliberations. I thank the Minister for his normal courtesy and consideration and discussions outside the Committee as well as in the Ways and Means debate, on Second Reading and during the Committee proceedings. I congratulate the Government Whip on keeping most of the Government Bench under control, with one or two exceptions, and I thank my hon. Friends for their support, including the hon. Member for Strangford, who is very welcome to be with us and assist us. I also congratulate my hon. Friend for Cardiff South and Penarth on his first Standing Committee; he made an excellent choice in serving on this Bill. I can guarantee him, it is not like this all the time, but it is a good introduction to a Standing Committee. Can I finally thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West for her assistance in making sure that all sides of the Committee were informed and able to participate. We look forward to the Third Reading in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be reported, without amendment.

Committee rose.